Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

Distant villains who are orchestrating things unseen far away just don't cut it. They have to be in your face cackling with abandon. Otherwise, they're really just a bit dull.

Would/Did you regard Sauron as a dull villain? His influence in LOTR was through either the ring, or his minions. There were a few instances where he revealed himself (when Frodo put on the ring), and at the end of the movie but by and large he wasn't an 'in your face' villain.

I've always preferred the villains who have a perverse sense of the way things should be. E.g. a villain who isn't power-hungry as an end of itself, but who believes that they're the best person to rule because they would do the best job. So even if that means crushing all dissent that's acceptable because (to them) the ends justify the means.

Off the top of my head my favourite villains would be:

1) The Shivan race in FreeSpace 1: Their motivation was simply to wipe out any space-faring species that might be a threat to other, younger (and non-space-faring) species.That way such younger species would have a chance to develop before being wiped out or enslaved.

2) The Vorlons/Shadows in Babylon 5: Rather than try to attack each other directly they tried to use the younger space-faring species to fight for them. For the Shadows it was all about 'development through chaos', i.e. getting the other species to fight each other (by instigating wars) with the hope that those who survived would be militarily stronger. For the Vorlons it was about 'development through order'. Species should develop through cooperation, so any trying to enslave or wipe out the others was the enemy.

3) Sakurai Shin'ichirou in Senkou no Night Raid, for being able to manipulate others in order to (almost) get what he wanted. All of this, whilst (to the audience) pretending that his agenda was not deceptive.

4) Jouslain Tytania in Tytania: Mostly for being a likeable villain and his ability to play politics to maintain his position.

This. Sure, Palpatine treated him as nothing more than a tool with which to do his dirty work and never really taught him how far one could go with the Dark Side. Palps trained him very similarly to the way Vader trained Starkiller, essentially. Once Starkiller was given independence, however, he proved to be a major threat and started taking down Star Destroyers in his spare time.

I doubt Maul would've been able to do anything like that, but the point is that if Maul were trained to be more than just a tool, he'd have been much better, and could've easily played a pivotal role in the Clone Wars. For instance, rather than having Dooku be a Sith, he'd have been a Jedi who defected to Palps' side and been under Maul's command, considering Maul is part of the Sith order where Dooku wouldn't have been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Endless Soul

Adam Sandler - Once a hero, now turned to a so-so villain because he keeps starring in his own movies.

This. I lol'ed so hard at this

I think another example of a truly great villian is Shinobu Sensui from Yu Yu Hakusho. I deem him one of the most interesting villains if not THE most interesting in any anime I've seen. His backstory is most of what makes him interesting. An incredibly talented child with unmatched skill who fought for most of his life defending humans from demons, believing demons were the monsters and criminals becomes twisted beyond repair when he sees how cruel and monstruous humans can be. The fact he has 7 different personalities to deal with different kinds of situations or aspects of Sensui's life is another thing that puts him so high in my book of best villains fiction has ever known. Shinobu pretty much made the second half of the show awesome.

I doubt Maul would've been able to do anything like that, but the point is that if Maul were trained to be more than just a tool, he'd have been much better, and could've easily played a pivotal role in the Clone Wars. For instance, rather than having Dooku be a Sith, he'd have been a Jedi who defected to Palps' side and been under Maul's command, considering Maul is part of the Sith order where Dooku wouldn't have been.

Then Obi-Wan would have actually died in The Phantom Menace if Maul was any better and that would have basically screwed over the whole plot line.

We will see on Darth Maul, as they are bringing him back for the Clone Wars. I believe next month. (other fiction has brought him back before, either with mechanical hips and legs, or as a clone to face either Obi-wan on Tatooine or Darth Vader as a test/assassination plot)

We will see on Darth Maul, as they are bringing him back for the Clone Wars. I believe next month. (other fiction has brought him back before, either with mechanical hips and legs, or as a clone to face either Obi-wan on Tatooine or Darth Vader as a test/assassination plot)

Not to my knowledge. It was hinted in the storyline about Savage Opress and the Nightsisters...Savage was to go looking for his "brother" in the Outer Rim. They showed what appeared to be Darth Maul. The recent commercials and people in charge have stated that Darth Maul is coming back...but not said how or why. The assumption is that Savage finds him and they have to deal with Obi-wan and Anakin at some point, but this being the Clone Wars, just about anything could happen.

Would/Did you regard Sauron as a dull villain? His influence in LOTR was through either the ring, or his minions. There were a few instances where he revealed himself (when Frodo put on the ring), and at the end of the movie but by and large he wasn't an 'in your face' villain.

I felt more 'danger/fear' for his vast troops and the ringwraiths then Sauron himself

There's only so much intimidation you yourself can do if you're an eye stuck on a tower

I take the Steins;Gate "SERN" is like animes "Snackers" and "DacMonalds", so I put the real name instead. It's obviously meant to be CERN in both cases.
You are assuming that Steins;Gate is not 100% true, that's what they want you to believe! :P

I take the Seins;Gate "SERN" is like animes "Snackers" and "DacMonalds", so I put the real name instead. It's obviously meant to be CERN in both cases.
You are assuming that Steins;Gate is not 100% true, that's what they want you to believe! :P

There's little doubt that CERN is doing very secret and shady things underground beneath everyone's noses in Genève. One can suppose Steins;Gate wanted to touch on that matter, although there's no telling if they're experimenting with time manipulation or something else entirely (UFOs for instance).

Or it could just be word spread by conspiracy theorists who simply want to be heard at all costs whether or not what they say is true.

Would/Did you regard Sauron as a dull villain? His influence in LOTR was through either the ring, or his minions. There were a few instances where he revealed himself (when Frodo put on the ring), and at the end of the movie but by and large he wasn't an 'in your face' villain.

He's not a great villain. I'd regard Gollum or Saruman as better villains.

Quote:

I've always preferred the villains who have a perverse sense of the way things should be. E.g. a villain who isn't power-hungry as an end of itself, but who believes that they're the best person to rule because they would do the best job. So even if that means crushing all dissent that's acceptable because (to them) the ends justify the means.

I'd agree.

Quote:

1) The Shivan race in FreeSpace 1: Their motivation was simply to wipe out any space-faring species that might be a threat to other, younger (and non-space-faring) species.That way such younger species would have a chance to develop before being wiped out or enslaved.

I agree, but they work because you have no idea why they're doing everything. They never say anything. Your typical shadowy villain reveals himself at the end and ends out with the whole "world domination" thing all over again. A bit of a let down when you're looking for something different.

Even by the end of Freespace 2 we have no idea what the motives of the Shivans are...only that we should be very afraid because they got a lot of really big ships and can make a star go supernova for reasons only they know. On top of the reasons we had to fear them from Freespace 1....which we could only guess at.

This is an awesome thread. To be honest, though, most villains qualify as failed villains simply because they inevitably lose to the protagonist at the end of the movie/series/book/etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

I don't think good villians have to be ambiguous.
That might be more realistic concerning the average human, but if you want realistic, there are more than enough examples of unbelievable atrocities out there, commited by real humans.

It is much more important, that they have a good motivation. And for that, actual gains work a lot better for me, than things like "revenge" or a grudge.

That also helps to explain why they have underlings following them. I always find it incredible stupid to have hordes of those super loyal minions suicide in order to fullfill their masters random ego trips.

I think "revenge" or a gruge are perfectly acceptable motivations, as long as it makes sense for the character. For a cold, callous automaton who thinks of everything in terms of possible return on investment, "revenge" would not be an acceptable motivation -- whereas if we have a brash, hotheaded gunslinger, it certainly would, without reflecting poorly on the writers.

Ambiguous villains do tend to be the best, in my opinion. But like you said, it's realism that's important.

One of my favorite villains of all time has to be Bed Wade from 3:10 to Yuma. He's thoroughly reprehensible in every way, but he still manages to eke a bit of sympathy from the audience (maybe a bit too much sympathy -- by the end of the film, he seems to have become more of an antihero than a villain). A better example might be Tom Ripley from The Talented Mr. Ripley (I know, I'm choosing some pretty obscure "villains" here). No one can deny that he'd a sociopathic murderer without a redeemable bone in his body, but at the same time, we understand his motivations, and that makes him real.

Depending on the writer and how they handled the story, Lex could irrepentant or sympathetic. Lex used to be a fan of Superman until an accident happened that cost his hair and he blamed Superman for it. Lex doesn't want to kill Superman as much he wants to discredit him and make himself look good. I really liked his Smallville incarnation, he was actually cool and he was best friends with Clark but his fatal flaw combined with the events that occurred as the series progressed molded him into the villain he was destined to be. This incarnation of Lex struck a chord with me because Lex was a villain who didn't aspire to be but the circumstances in his life and his own failings is what led him to the dark side. It shows that while it is true that while man change their circumstances, the circumstances can change men.

Quote:

This is an awesome thread. To be honest, though, most villains qualify as failed villains simply because they inevitably lose to the protagonist at the end of the movie/series/book/etc.

This can be said of most shonen, Disney movies, comedy movies or any media that has good and evil. It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that hero us gonna win against the villain but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad, it just an overused trope.

Quote:

Ambiguous villains do tend to be the best, in my opinion. But like you said, it's realism that's important.

One of the most notorious is Ozymandias of Watchmen, you could root for him for averting a crisis or chide him for a ridiculous plan that may or may not had worked out.